A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

10 Sucks !



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #271  
Old January 29th 19, 04:57 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
David B.[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

On 29/01/2019 15:25, Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-01-29 04:05, Chris wrote:

Talking to "Commander" Kinsey:
You really have no idea.


He sure doesn't. He's one of the invincibly ignorant. He not only has no
idea, he refuses to have any.

I suspect he blows off here because his pub mates have gotten tired of
listening to him.


You don't make many posts from a position of ignorance.

This was one of them. :-(

--
David B.
Ads
  #272  
Old January 29th 19, 08:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,279
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:09:21 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:38:50 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:18:20 -0000, Wolf K wrote:

On 2019-01-23 05:10, Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

[...]
[The NHS definition of hypothermia is] not a definition, it's a
belief, by an organisation that couldn't
organise a ****up in a brewery.

The NHS didn't invent hypothermia. It's an actual thing. Every Google hit
says the same thing. Here's some actual science...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...23085007000916

They take our taxes and can't even cure the common cold.

Wow. That's a special kind of criticism.

"Commander" Kinsey is a special kind of twit. He tries new nyms when he
realises most people have kill-filed him,

You don't get it do you? The killfiling brigade are a bunch of childish
morons. I don't care if someone doesn't like my opinions and killfiles
me, but to jump up and down and publicise that they don't like me is
beyond a joke. And what's worse is responding to my post, then
killfiling me AFTERWARDS, so they get the last word in - the ultimate childishness.

and for a couple or three
posts he sounds quite sane. Then something triggers his characteristic
weirdness, which eventually becomes incomprehensible. About the only
thing you can be sure of is that he hates just about everything that
makes his life in the UK possible and worth living. Except ****ups in
pubs, a method of achieving a pseudo-zen-like absence of thought
peculiar to yobs.

Just because I show common sense and realise that 90% of the population are idiots....

Take the IQ test. 50% of people have a 2 digit IQ by definition. Have
you ever tried having a conversation with one?

It's high time we let idiots die off instead of protecting them with
benefits, NHS, etc, etc. If you can't survive by yourself, we don't want you on Earth.

That's Michael Gove level of stupidity. I'd expect better numeracy from
someone with a physics degree.


I assume you're referring to my statement about the IQ test. You do
realise that an IQ of 100 is the average?


It is a standardised average. Meaning that it is always 100, regardless of
any absolute changes in results. So killing off "idiots" will have exactly
zero effect on average IQ.


Actually, the USA has an average of 98, they're stupider than the average human.

Anyway, at the current rating, 100 IQ is abysmal. Think of a MacDonalds worker trying to give you the correct change. Tthere are loads of people like that.
  #273  
Old January 29th 19, 08:28 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,279
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:43:02 -0000, Wolf K wrote:

On 2019-01-27 16:09, Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

[...]
I assume you're referring to my statement about the IQ test. You do
realise that an IQ of 100 is the average?


It is a standardised average. Meaning that it is always 100, regardless of
any absolute changes in results. So killing off "idiots" will have exactly
zero effect on average IQ.


I recall reading a note a few years ago that claimed that actual
performance on IQ tests had risen about 10 points since the 1940s. IIRC,
similar observations have been reported for SAT and other "objective"
tests. [1]


I should think so too, stupid people really should die off, or not procreate. Surely you're more likely to marry an intelligent wife than a stupid one?

My son once told me that J. Edgar Hoover's method of improving the
service was to fire everybody who was below average. Apparently he
couldn't understand why in the next round of tests there were people who
scored below average. I suspect it's an apocryphal tale, but it
illustrates a common misunderstanding about averages, as well as a
superstitious reverence for test scores. A test score is a number after
all, and numbers are facts....


Microsoft do the same, they fire the lowest scoring people. Makes sense. It'll make the average increase, but then you can always increase it more.

BTW, shoe size is said to correlate positively with IQ sco the larger
your feet, the more likely that you will score above average.


That could be possible. Inferior people tend to be stupid, fat, ugly, have small feet, huge noses, poor coordination, etc, etc.

Best,

[1] I used to give a reading test for a text before we dealt with ti in
class, then again after we had dealt with it. I made quite clear that I
expected the students to score higher the 2nd time, and that the passing
score would be considerably higher than the first time.

  #274  
Old January 29th 19, 08:31 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,279
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:28:32 -0000, Chris wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-01-27 16:09, Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

[...]
I assume you're referring to my statement about the IQ test. You do
realise that an IQ of 100 is the average?

It is a standardised average. Meaning that it is always 100, regardless of
any absolute changes in results. So killing off "idiots" will have exactly
zero effect on average IQ.


I recall reading a note a few years ago that claimed that actual
performance on IQ tests had risen about 10 points since the 1940s. IIRC,
similar observations have been reported for SAT and other "objective"
tests. [1]


Yes, *raw* scores are increasing; It's called the Flynn effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

My son once told me that J. Edgar Hoover's method of improving the
service was to fire everybody who was below average. Apparently he
couldn't understand why in the next round of tests there were people who
scored below average. I suspect it's an apocryphal tale, but it
illustrates a common misunderstanding about averages,


Yep. Our minister of education, no less, famously tried to make the claim
that all schools should be above average. With fools like him in charge
it's no surprise we're in a mess.


It's a very sensible thing to do. Everyone should strive to be better than average. When I run a marathon, I try to be in the top 20%.

Why do you think it's wrong to make every school better? The worst 50% of schools should always be looked at to see why they're worse than the rest. Of course if there's a very small difference between the schools, that's fine, but if the band is quite wide, there's clearly something wrong with every below average school.
  #275  
Old January 30th 19, 01:23 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,279
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:05:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:22:20 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:32:19 -0000, Chris wrote:

That's why we have medical terms for them: hypothermia and fever.

They're exaggerated. Better terms would be "a bit chilly" or "slightly warm".

Medicine doesn't exaggerate.


Of course it does. It's part of the modern namby pamby health and softy
****e. Wear a seatbelt, keep warm, disinfect everything, watch the
sellby dates, it's pathetic.


And it's why life expectancy is so high.

The side-effect of seatbelts is that we have a shortage of organ donors
from healthy young men wrapping themselves around trees.


Seat belts only save yourself, nobody has the right to tell you to save yourself.

Myself, I prefer just to drive more carefully. I've never needed the assistance of a seatbelt.

If you lived in any other century (other than 20th) you'd already be dead.

No medicine has ever saved my life.

********! The very fact that you're alive is a success. It doesn't have to
have directly affected you: medicine will have kept your mother healthy
during pregnancy and avoided her or you dying during birth or shortly
after.


Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon, we don't need science for it to work.


Look at maternal death rates during childbirth in the 17th/18th centuries.
Humans have a barely positive birthrate without medicine. It is much lower
than in other mammals.


You do talk ****e. Animals have always reproduced without science.

You will have been vaccinated and even if you hadn't your peers would have
been imparting heard immunity which you benefited from directly.


Vaccines kill people, which is why many parents refuse to let heir kids get them.


Vaccines are amongst the safest treatments you can take - hence why we them
to babies and small children - and have saved millions of lives.

Those parents are actively harming their own kids and, worse, others' too.


Bull****. Vaccines are "dead" forms of the actual virus. I'm not letting that **** near me. We have our own immune systems, why reinvent the wheel?

Good hygiene and sanitation of homes, and the reduction of disease in
animals.


"Hygiene" kills off bacteria which we're supposed to encounter. What's
happening is nobody has a decent immune system anymore.


We encounter plenty of bacteria daily. Hygiene just means we don't get sick
all the time. Especially the young and old.


If we encounter plenty bacteria daily, why do you want to kill it?

All the above are examples of where science has contributed to you still
being alive and healthy well into adulthood. Nowadays people are so
accustomed to modern medicine that they don't realise how intrinsic to
their day to day well-being it is.

The anti-vaxxers are finding out, sadly...

In those days,large proportions of people died by the age of 5, simple
illness by today's standards were fatal or were crippling and luge
expectancy was in the 40s. Common diseases like tetanus, TB, small pox,
polio, whooping cough, etc are things of the past (in the UK). Organ
transplants, keyhole surgery, chemotherapy, and other ground breaking drugs
are phenomenal success stories in human health.

No, they're ****ing us up. Because we now rely on medicine for
everything, we're losing our natural immune systems. Plus survival of
the fittest has gone out of the window, people who are made badly and
should be removed from the gene pool are now reproducing and making more useless people.

That's a very unpleasant viewpoint.


But it works. It's called evolution.


No it's called natural selection. Evolution occurs on much longer
timescales and humans are doing very well thank you very much. Including
the "badly made ones".


Evolution is a synonym of natural selection.

If we prevent it from happening, we'll all end up completely useless and
reliant on medicine. And half the population will be sapping money from
the rest on invalidity benefits.

A doubling of the average life expectancy in 170 years is as close to a
miracle as is possible with science.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ime/2015-09-09

It's ****. We should be able to live forever by now, I'm not impressed.

Hahahahahahaha! If we didn't die of old age the planet would be overrun and
we'd die of starvation instead.


You're such a ****ing idiot.


I'm not the one claiming we should be immortal.


What's wrong with immortality? Why keep throwing away lives and making new ones?

Every other part of science has come about 10 times further.

Every other science is a piece of **** compared to biology.


Yeah right, look at current CPU design. 10nm dies. 6 trillion
calculations per second on something the size of your fingernail.


Very impressive and very cool.


Yet we can't do the same in biology?

Yet we can't work out how the human body operates. The problem is not
many people research biology, there isn't money it.


You really have no idea. In the current funding round from the government
until 2020, biology is getting £3.7bn compared to the physical sciences
getting £3.1bn. The Wellcome Trust charity funds primarily biology through
human health research and gives out £900m per year. Other charities like
the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and many others also fund
biological research to the tune of millions every year. And that's just the
uk. It's the same story across the EU, US and other countries.


Then more money should be going to biology.

Biology is complex primarily because it combines physics and chemistry
within an interconnected ecosystem that generates 2nd and 3rd order
emergent properties which are borderline chaotic and often unpredictable.
It's called "life".

If you poke a tiger with a stick, physics tells you it'll push back on
stick with the same force as you provide. We have very nice equations to
describe it mathematically. Biology tells you it'll probably bite your head
off. There's no equation for that. Both are very real phenomena.


Not being able to understand how your own body works is rather pathetic.

If we ditched government funded stuff like the NHS in the UK, people
would have to pay to get repaired, and companies would start investing in research.


That would guarantee that more people die because they can't access the
healthcare they need. See the broken US system.


It's not broken. The useless poor people die off, the rich successful folk get fixed.
  #276  
Old January 30th 19, 07:10 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:28:32 -0000, Chris wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-01-27 16:09, Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
[...]
I assume you're referring to my statement about the IQ test. You do
realise that an IQ of 100 is the average?

It is a standardised average. Meaning that it is always 100, regardless of
any absolute changes in results. So killing off "idiots" will have exactly
zero effect on average IQ.

I recall reading a note a few years ago that claimed that actual
performance on IQ tests had risen about 10 points since the 1940s. IIRC,
similar observations have been reported for SAT and other "objective"
tests. [1]


Yes, *raw* scores are increasing; It's called the Flynn effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

My son once told me that J. Edgar Hoover's method of improving the
service was to fire everybody who was below average. Apparently he
couldn't understand why in the next round of tests there were people who
scored below average. I suspect it's an apocryphal tale, but it
illustrates a common misunderstanding about averages,


Yep. Our minister of education, no less, famously tried to make the claim
that all schools should be above average. With fools like him in charge
it's no surprise we're in a mess.


It's a very sensible thing to do. Everyone should strive to be better
than average. When I run a marathon, I try to be in the top 20%.


For an individual it makes sense to aim to be above average. For everyone
to do it nonsense.

Why do you think it's wrong to make every school better?


I don't, but that isn't what he said.

  #277  
Old January 30th 19, 08:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:05:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:22:20 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:32:19 -0000, Chris wrote:

That's why we have medical terms for them: hypothermia and fever.

They're exaggerated. Better terms would be "a bit chilly" or "slightly warm".

Medicine doesn't exaggerate.

Of course it does. It's part of the modern namby pamby health and softy
****e. Wear a seatbelt, keep warm, disinfect everything, watch the
sellby dates, it's pathetic.


And it's why life expectancy is so high.

The side-effect of seatbelts is that we have a shortage of organ donors
from healthy young men wrapping themselves around trees.


Seat belts only save yourself, nobody has the right to tell you to save yourself.

Myself, I prefer just to drive more carefully. I've never needed the
assistance of a seatbelt.

If you lived in any other century (other than 20th) you'd already be dead.

No medicine has ever saved my life.

********! The very fact that you're alive is a success. It doesn't have to
have directly affected you: medicine will have kept your mother healthy
during pregnancy and avoided her or you dying during birth or shortly
after.

Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon, we don't need science for it to work.


Look at maternal death rates during childbirth in the 17th/18th centuries.
Humans have a barely positive birthrate without medicine. It is much lower
than in other mammals.


You do talk ****e. Animals have always reproduced without science.

You will have been vaccinated and even if you hadn't your peers would have
been imparting heard immunity which you benefited from directly.

Vaccines kill people, which is why many parents refuse to let heir kids get them.


Vaccines are amongst the safest treatments you can take - hence why we them
to babies and small children - and have saved millions of lives.

Those parents are actively harming their own kids and, worse, others' too.


Bull****. Vaccines are "dead" forms of the actual virus. I'm not
letting that **** near me. We have our own immune systems, why reinvent the wheel?

Good hygiene and sanitation of homes, and the reduction of disease in
animals.

"Hygiene" kills off bacteria which we're supposed to encounter. What's
happening is nobody has a decent immune system anymore.


We encounter plenty of bacteria daily. Hygiene just means we don't get sick
all the time. Especially the young and old.


If we encounter plenty bacteria daily, why do you want to kill it?

All the above are examples of where science has contributed to you still
being alive and healthy well into adulthood. Nowadays people are so
accustomed to modern medicine that they don't realise how intrinsic to
their day to day well-being it is.

The anti-vaxxers are finding out, sadly...

In those days,large proportions of people died by the age of 5, simple
illness by today's standards were fatal or were crippling and luge
expectancy was in the 40s. Common diseases like tetanus, TB, small pox,
polio, whooping cough, etc are things of the past (in the UK). Organ
transplants, keyhole surgery, chemotherapy, and other ground breaking drugs
are phenomenal success stories in human health.

No, they're ****ing us up. Because we now rely on medicine for
everything, we're losing our natural immune systems. Plus survival of
the fittest has gone out of the window, people who are made badly and
should be removed from the gene pool are now reproducing and making
more useless people.

That's a very unpleasant viewpoint.

But it works. It's called evolution.


No it's called natural selection. Evolution occurs on much longer
timescales and humans are doing very well thank you very much. Including
the "badly made ones".


Evolution is a synonym of natural selection.

If we prevent it from happening, we'll all end up completely useless and
reliant on medicine. And half the population will be sapping money from
the rest on invalidity benefits.

A doubling of the average life expectancy in 170 years is as close to a
miracle as is possible with science.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ime/2015-09-09

It's ****. We should be able to live forever by now, I'm not impressed.

Hahahahahahaha! If we didn't die of old age the planet would be overrun and
we'd die of starvation instead.

You're such a ****ing idiot.


I'm not the one claiming we should be immortal.


What's wrong with immortality? Why keep throwing away lives and making new ones?


To keep adapting and evolving. If there's no death, there are no births and
we are at risk of being wiped out by a pandemic.

Every other part of science has come about 10 times further.

Every other science is a piece of **** compared to biology.

Yeah right, look at current CPU design. 10nm dies. 6 trillion
calculations per second on something the size of your fingernail.


Very impressive and very cool.


Yet we can't do the same in biology?

Yet we can't work out how the human body operates. The problem is not
many people research biology, there isn't money it.


You really have no idea. In the current funding round from the government
until 2020, biology is getting £3.7bn compared to the physical sciences
getting £3.1bn. The Wellcome Trust charity funds primarily biology through
human health research and gives out £900m per year. Other charities like
the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and many others also fund
biological research to the tune of millions every year. And that's just the
uk. It's the same story across the EU, US and other countries.


Then more money should be going to biology.

Biology is complex primarily because it combines physics and chemistry
within an interconnected ecosystem that generates 2nd and 3rd order
emergent properties which are borderline chaotic and often unpredictable.
It's called "life".

If you poke a tiger with a stick, physics tells you it'll push back on
stick with the same force as you provide. We have very nice equations to
describe it mathematically. Biology tells you it'll probably bite your head
off. There's no equation for that. Both are very real phenomena.


Not being able to understand how your own body works is rather pathetic.


Of course we know how are bodies work on many levels. There's just so much
more to learn!

If we ditched government funded stuff like the NHS in the UK, people
would have to pay to get repaired, and companies would start investing in research.


That would guarantee that more people die because they can't access the
healthcare they need. See the broken US system.


It's not broken. The useless poor people die off, the rich successful folk get fixed.


That's despicable. End of discussion.



  #278  
Old February 1st 19, 08:33 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,279
Default The MVP question (was - 10 Sucks !)

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:49:15 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:05:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:22:20 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:32:19 -0000, Chris wrote:

A doubling of the average life expectancy in 170 years is as close to a
miracle as is possible with science.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ime/2015-09-09

It's ****. We should be able to live forever by now, I'm not impressed.

Hahahahahahaha! If we didn't die of old age the planet would be overrun and
we'd die of starvation instead.

You're such a ****ing idiot.

I'm not the one claiming we should be immortal.


What's wrong with immortality? Why keep throwing away lives and making new ones?


To keep adapting and evolving. If there's no death, there are no births and
we are at risk of being wiped out by a pandemic.


Evolution is already broken, since we keep looking after those that are weak and ill.

And if there's no death, we don't need to evolve, as clearly everyone is fine as they are. If a pandemic appeared, some will die, then more will have to be created.

Every other part of science has come about 10 times further.

Every other science is a piece of **** compared to biology.

Yeah right, look at current CPU design. 10nm dies. 6 trillion
calculations per second on something the size of your fingernail.

Very impressive and very cool.


Yet we can't do the same in biology?

Yet we can't work out how the human body operates. The problem is not
many people research biology, there isn't money it.

You really have no idea. In the current funding round from the government
until 2020, biology is getting £3.7bn compared to the physical sciences
getting £3.1bn. The Wellcome Trust charity funds primarily biology through
human health research and gives out £900m per year. Other charities like
the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and many others also fund
biological research to the tune of millions every year. And that's just the
uk. It's the same story across the EU, US and other countries.


Then more money should be going to biology.

Biology is complex primarily because it combines physics and chemistry
within an interconnected ecosystem that generates 2nd and 3rd order
emergent properties which are borderline chaotic and often unpredictable.
It's called "life".

If you poke a tiger with a stick, physics tells you it'll push back on
stick with the same force as you provide. We have very nice equations to
describe it mathematically. Biology tells you it'll probably bite your head
off. There's no equation for that. Both are very real phenomena.


Not being able to understand how your own body works is rather pathetic.


Of course we know how are bodies work on many levels. There's just so much
more to learn!


Pitiful, we should have found it all out by now.

If we ditched government funded stuff like the NHS in the UK, people
would have to pay to get repaired, and companies would start investing in research.

That would guarantee that more people die because they can't access the
healthcare they need. See the broken US system.


It's not broken. The useless poor people die off, the rich successful folk get fixed.


That's despicable. End of discussion.


It's evolution, which you liked further up in this post.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.